Houston Oilers v. Neely case brief summary
361 F.2d 36 (1966)
CASE FACTS
While in college, the player signed a professional football contract with the team. There was an oral understanding among the parties that the contract was to be kept secret because the player would have been ineligible to compete in a collegiate post-season game if it was known that he had signed and had received money under that contract. The player then signed a contract with a different team and returned the contract and bonus check to the first team.
DISCUSSION
The trial court denied the team's request for an injunction restraining the player from playing football with any other team, but on appeal, the court reversed, holding that the first contract was valid and enforceable. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the team had fraudulently represented to the player that he would have remained eligible for post-season play if the contract was kept secret. The court did not agree that the team should have been precluded from equitable relief based on the doctrine of unclean hands because it was not unlawful for the player to surrender his amateur status nor was the team under any legal duty to publicize the contract or to keep it secret.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's order that found that the contract between the team and the player was unenforceable and remanded with instructions to grant an injunction restraining the player from playing professional football with any other team.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
361 F.2d 36 (1966)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant team challenged an order from
a trial court (Texas) that denied its request for an injunction
restraining appellee player from playing professional football with
any other team after finding that the contract between the parties
was tainted with fraud and violative of the Texas Statute of Frauds.CASE FACTS
While in college, the player signed a professional football contract with the team. There was an oral understanding among the parties that the contract was to be kept secret because the player would have been ineligible to compete in a collegiate post-season game if it was known that he had signed and had received money under that contract. The player then signed a contract with a different team and returned the contract and bonus check to the first team.
DISCUSSION
The trial court denied the team's request for an injunction restraining the player from playing football with any other team, but on appeal, the court reversed, holding that the first contract was valid and enforceable. The court determined that there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that the team had fraudulently represented to the player that he would have remained eligible for post-season play if the contract was kept secret. The court did not agree that the team should have been precluded from equitable relief based on the doctrine of unclean hands because it was not unlawful for the player to surrender his amateur status nor was the team under any legal duty to publicize the contract or to keep it secret.
CONCLUSION
The court reversed the trial court's order that found that the contract between the team and the player was unenforceable and remanded with instructions to grant an injunction restraining the player from playing professional football with any other team.
Suggested Study Aid For Sports Law
No comments:
Post a Comment